Sir, This channel’s work has been some of the very best content I have been exposed to in years. I am going through your previous videos and they are astonishing. You deserve praises and gratitude for bringing some true intelligence and humility in this world. This is so much needed. Thank you. Best regards
its in the videos you watch, and what you give thumbs up and down to, as well as what you comment on and watch regularly the more you use youtube, the more you will be exposed to things that will interest you it is the ONLY reason i still use this spooky, infested rat hole
Scientists, especially those who subscribe to scientism, have a great deal of intellectual pride, and to thwart that pride God intentionally constructs reality with truths that are inaccessible to those enthralled with the pride of knowledge, science, logic, and reason.
Personal anecdote: I work in construction, one time a utility locate company used dousing rods to locate a buried drain pipe. The end of the culvert was visible so I think they were just estimating which direction it was going lol. I was like "wtf I don't trust that" and made them do it the "proper" way by running a metal wire up the pipe, running electric current though it and detecting it with those wand things (idk what they're called). Sure enough there was a 45 degree bend in the pipe that the dousing rods failed to detect. That's my experience with dousing rods
You did well by comparing evolutionary scientism to religion. They are truly evangelical in their “ beliefs “ I really enjoy your conversation. It’s always nice listening to someone who stimulates thought
A quote that might be entertaining for future reference that pokes the scientism bear a bit: - Terrance McKenna once said, “Modern science is based on the principle, “Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest. The one free miracle is the appearance of all the matter and energy in the Universe and all the laws that govern it from nothing, everywhere all at once.”” BTW, This talk is way better than any philosophy discussion I’ve ever heard. Bravo good sir.
I was reminded of Jonathan Rauch’s assertion in The Constitution of Knowledge that a critical feature of science is that it is a social network. True knowledge building requires open inquiry, driven by a network of checkers trying to falsify others’ (or even their own) conclusions. When we stifle open inquiry and criticism, we make ourselves vulnerable as a species to believing untrue assumptions, which is a dangerous place to be.
That sounds like a very interesting (and possibly misleading) title. Is it something like "the theory of everything" or a gronis or a guide/secular forms of theBible? Do tell pls. Tyvm in advance
@@XanderShiller it’s simply an often overlooked aspect of science that it’s not just the method that individuals use to gather evidence, test theories, and attempt to eliminate personal bias. It’s the fact that we need free exchange of information and an environment open to criticism for science to work. Science isn’t just the method, it’s the entire decentralized network of people checking other people’s assertions. Really it’s just a reminder that we need the marketplace of ideas.
Rupert Sheldrakes book "the science delusion" is a good breakdown of the dogma that now has enveloped most of the Science tm. It's mainly philosophical materialism that's the problem.
One correction; the peppered moth didn't change bc of soot on the trees. It was because of the lichen which normally grows on them. Pollution caused the lichen (the white looking stuff) to die, leaving only the dark bark exposed.
Thank you for that, which I wasn't aware of. Yes, there is a lot more to the peppered moth story than I discussed here, as I became aware of when making this. I stuck to the "kindergarten" version of the story for pedagogical purposes. There is a whole book on the peppered moth suggesting the science behind it is rather dubious.
There are some guys in the vineyard industry that have made millions based on their abilities as "water witches", finding aquifers when old ones run out or when winemakers want to expand their properties or when new growers buy land that was previously thought to have no water source. Divining has been used for literally thousands of years for this purpose.
My best friend's father worked for years dowsing for quarries with great success...discerning different types of stone, depth and quantités etc. He finally quit and immédiately found a site and retired at 50. Lived to 92. 16 grandchildren+++
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on science and scientists. I used to be a professional scientist and now I just am a citizen scientist. I agree that science should be driven by curiosity and questions, not by following and defending dogma as if you were a believer in a religion. (Some say scientific materialism is a religion for many scientists. I agree) What I would like to add to this discussion is that science works not so much in an ideal way. I would posit that it rarely ever worked that way. It works, because people, especially scientists, have a driving need to be right. They have pet theories and come to believe and identify with those beliefs. Since there are scientists out there who have other theories and beliefs and want to be right also, they conduct experiments that give evidence which supports their theory. They know their arguments and evidence which supports their theory will be criticized by scientists who believe a different theory is correct. Scientists try very hard to eliminate the possibility of criticism in their work, so they designed their experiments in a very controlled fashion. This is why good scientists are so focused on minute details and are careful not to draw conclusions which are not supported by their or other evidence found by other "legitimate" scientists published in a peer reviewed journal. I think the scientific process works because the net effect of trying to avoid criticism makes more and more precise experiments and better data, experimental design, and theories. The overall effect of what I call the "bickering scientists model of science," is that knowledge of the falsifiable universe is discovered and refined. Science fails when scientists are not allowed to challenge certain beliefs and theories purported to be "laws". The objectivity of science is an emergent property of the bickering scientists and not so much from pure curiosity. I do want to say, however, that the best scientists are the ones who are curious and objective, but those people are a small minority in the scientific community imo. Your channel is very good food for thought.
In high school we were told to write an argumentative paper on a researched topic, they told us to take a stance before collecting the research to understand it, they did not say this explicitly put placed it in flowcharts and in the teacher's example/explanation
Many atheists do not recognize the greatest refutation of religion tends to come from the study of religion itself. James Tabor does a much better job of throwing Christian legends into question simply through rigorous hisotorical research than any evolutionary biologist ever has.
Prof Jim Costa, director of a biological research station in North Carolina, USA, and an expert on both men, says part of the problem appears to be that Wallace failed to promote his role in formulating the theory as effectively as Darwin. While they had jointly published the theory of evolution by natural selection in a paper in August 1858, it was Darwin's On the Origin of Species the very next year that truly grabbed the public's imagination. Even one of Wallace's own books appeared to pass on the credit for the discovery. It was called 'Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection with Some of Its Applications'! Prof Costa said another factor was what became known as the "eclipse of Darwinism", when natural selection fell out of favour in the late 19th Century. By the time it was revived in the 1930s, neither man was around and the world was a very different place. "I think when this idea was resurrected in 1930 there was a new generation and they very much had Darwin on their minds," said Prof Costa.
I was thinking the same thing about Dawkins. He is also wrong about philosophy. according to him we don't need philosophy ,as science can tell us everything , an assertion I debunked in about 5 minutes. also, the argument that god could create a better design is like saying an artist could have painted a better picture .
As an artist, a real artist is born, not made, I have very little respect for science. An artist has vision and psychic power, and discovers the world by passionate emotional experience, matchless intuition and brilliant imagination, and it doesnt get deeper than that.
Awesome! For years now, I've been saying dogmatic atheists and theists are cut from the same literalist cloth. These videos dovetail very nicely with Robert Ellis' "Middle Way Philosophy". Everything discissed here serves as a perfect case study for the principles he articulates.
Charles Darwin descended from Adam Smith. Did you know that the word "ecology" was modeled on the word "economy" to connote a high level of complexity?
It works. As a boy in the 70s l was on holiday in Cornwall. My parents had rented a cottage adjoining a farm. I remember the farmer had hired a local water diviner to come and locate a spot on his land for him to dig a new well. This rural guy turned up with a couple of sticks and within an hour of walking around the fields he had located an area of land for the farmer to dig out his new well. The diviner told me it wasn't magic and anyone could do it with practice. On my next summer holiday visit, the farmer had dug out his new well where the diviner had indicated him to and had hit water.
The fact that it works sometimes is not conclusive evidence that it works. The odds of selecting a location completely at random and still finding ground water are usually quite high.
@@175griffin Surely, it's more than a hit-and-miss procedure? Because of the frequent droughts & difficulties in accessing mains water, many Farms in Cornwall depend upon having boreholes dug on their land. The local borehole drilling companies want to make money quickly and efficiently and do not want the expense of spending many days drilling out a dry borehole. Hence their stupid reliance on water diviners instead of scientists. These diviners have over the centuries, demonstrably proven their uncanny ability to find water first-time.
I used dowsing rods to follow the water pipes that supplied our house when I was a kid. Always weirded me out how it worked. Made no sense, and yet, there it was 😂
Well, intuition isn't really magic. It exists across all humanity and especially with those that pay close attention to it. So, it's likely intuition at work.
I wrote a Masters dissertation critiquing your book The Phoenix Principle and the Coming Dark Age a few years ago. I applied the theory to contemporary migration flows in Europe. The book completely changed how I look at the world and set me down paths of intellectual and philosophical discover that I might not have been aware of, let alone pursued otherwise. I'm curious whether your views have changed since you write that book almost 25 years ago.
i worked with master plumbers that have divining rods with their tools hvac as well actually i think industrial mechanics have them too lol i was given a demo once....essentially the ego of people today that have never worked in the field to try and tell MASTER craftsmen how they should be doing their jobs now that is insanity.
Many people with high IQ but zero experience of doing any productive work are loathe to admit that people with average IQ but a wealth of experience can outperform them, and have knowledge they cannot understand.
You Sir, are a rock star. Your thesis is straightforward, your presentation is tight, your elocution superb. Not just food for thought - a seven course meal that leaves me hungry for more.
I worked for a plumbing company doing excacation. We 'd ALWAYS call to have the water mains, comms, gas, power, etc marked on the ground. But we also used witching sticks to double check areas at times and it always seemed to work.
11:24 Fort, Charles. 1996. Lo! London: John Brown Publishing. 12:24 Hayek, F A. 1955. The counter-revolution of science: Studies on the abuse of reason. New York, NY: Free Press. 15:53 Lewis, C S. 1946. That hideous strength: A modern fairytale for grown-ups. New York, NY: Macmillan. 16:13 Aeschliman, Michael D. 2019. The restoration of man: C S Lewis and the continuing case against scientism. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press. 16:29 Harrington, Thomas S. 2023. The treason of the experts: Covid and the credentialed class. Austin, TX: Brownstone Institute. 19:54 Coyne, Jerry A. 2010. Why evolution is true. Oxford: OUP. 20:37 Jablonka, Eva, and Marion J Lamb, . 2006. Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 20:46 Dembski, William A, ed. 2004. Uncommon dissent: Intellectuals who find Darwinism unconvincing. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books. 20:56 Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York, NY: Free Press. 21:01 Ruse, Michael. 1999. Mystery of mysteries: Is evolution a social construction? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 21:04 Fodor, Jerry, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. 2010. What Darwin got wrong. London: Profile Books. 21:07 Kranich, Ernst-Michael. 1999. Thinking beyond Darwin: The idea of the type as a key to vertebrate evolution. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Books. 21:22 Baltscheffsky, Herrick, Hans Jörnvall, and Rudolf Rigler, . 1985. Molecular evolution of life. Cambridge: CUP. 21:24 Smith, J Maynard. 1978. The evolution of sex. Cambridge: CUP. 21:26 Salthe, Stanley N. 1993. Development and evolution: Complexity and change in biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 21:27 Parkin, David T. 1979. An introduction to evolutionary genetics. London: Edward Arnold. 21:31 Darwin, Charles. 1998 [1874]. The descent of man. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. 21:33 Dowdeswell, W H. 1955. The mechanism of evolution. London: William Heinemann. 21:35 Allen, K C, and D E G Briggs. 1989. Evolution and the fossil record. Belhaven Press: London. 25:01 Darwin, Charles. 1968 [1859]. The origin of species. London: Penguin. 29:08 Lane, David, Sander van der Leeuw, Denise Pumain, and Geoffrey West, . 2009. Complexity perspectives in innovation and social change. Cham: Springer. 30:36 Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967. The will to power. New York, NY: Vintage Books. 30:42 Spengler, Oswald. 2014 [1926 and 1928] . The decline of the West. Random Shack. 35:40 Bak, Per. 1997. How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 43:20 Carey, Nessa. 2011. The epigenetics revolution. London: Icon Books. 1:01:43 Cairns-Smith, A G. 1985. Seven clues to the origin of life: A scientific detective story. Cambridge: CUP. 1:03:45 Kauffman, Stuart. 1993. The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1:05:09 Kauffman, Stuart. 1995. At home in the universe: The search for laws of complexity. London: Penguin. 1:05:25 Kauffman, Stuart. 2000. Investigations. Oxford: OUP. 1:07:51 Brown, James A C. 1963. Techniques of persuasion: From propaganda to brainwashing. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1:11:53 Sarfati, Jonathan. 2010. The greatest hoax on earth: Refuting Dawkins on evolution. Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers. 1:19:10 Dawkins, Richard. 2010. The greatest show on earth: The evidence for evolution. London: Black Swan. 1:27:14 Cook, Melvin A. 1966. Prehistory and earth models. London: Max Parrish. 1:28:14 Hapgood, Charles. 1958. The path of the pole: The definitive work on earth crust displacement and its consequences. London: Souvenir Press. 1:35:59 Freke, Timothy, and Peter Gandy. 2018. Jesus and the lost goddess: The secret teachings of the original Christians. London: Tim Freke Publications. 1:36:56 Robinson, James M, ed. 1988. The Nag Hammadi library. Leiden: E J Brill. 1:38:58 Pagels, Elaine. 1979. The gnostic gospels. London: Penguin. 1:46:13 Picknett, Lynn, and Clive Prince. 2011. The forbidden universe: The occult origins of science and the search for the mind of God. London: Constable. 1:48:34 Phillips, Patricia. 1990. The scientific lady: A social history of woman's scientific interests 1520-1918. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 1:50:07 Raup, David M. 1999. The Nemesis affair: A story of the death of the dinosaurs and the ways of science. New York, NY: Norton. 2:02:01 Thomas, Gordon, and Martin Dillon. 2002. The assassination of Robert Maxwell: Israel's superspy. London: Robson. 2:18:15 Jones, Roger S. 1983. Physics as metaphor. London: Abacus. 2:28:13 Crichton, Michael. 2004. State of fear. London: HarperCollins. 2:32:21 Byrne, David, and Gill Callaghan. 2014. Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Abingdon: Routledge. 2:32:51 Kealey, Terence. 1995. The economic laws of scientific research. Basingstoke: Macmillan. 2:35:59 Friedman, Jonathan. 2000. “Concretizing the continuity argument in global systems analysis.” In World system history: The social science of long-term change, edited by Robert A Denemark, Jonathan Friedman, Barry K Gills and George Modelski. London:: Routledge. 2:37:04 Friedman, Jonathan, and Christopher Chase-Dunn, . 2005. Hegemonic declines: Present and past. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. 2:37:06 Friedman, Jonathan. 2019. PC worlds : Political correctness and rising elites at the end of hegemony. Oxford: Berghahn Books. 2:45:20 Ciba Foundation. 1973. Civilization & science: In conflict or collaboration. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2:47:04 Sempé, Jean-Jacques. 1989. Face à face. Paris: Gallimard. 2:50:07 Huxley, Aldous. 1955. Brave new world. Harmondsworth: Penguin. I should have included the articles and papers only it was too much work.
No, Buddhism answers no questions of creation. And reality exists independently of our minds. Westerners love their version of Buddhism because it suits our self-serving desire to make gods of ourselves. Pray to God and read the Bible.
I'd like to propose a small extension to "Science TM". It has at least one index for the field "in books and papers" which characterises the strength of dogma. The index is normalised to 1 and is calculated as the ratio of number of supporting and refuting publications. The index has a threshold that determines whether any dissenting viewpoint can be openly mocked. Example, we count the number of publications in favour and against divining rods and find 0.05 in favour. We set a threshold of 025, thus divining rods are "witchcraft". No further enquiry is necessary and if a government committee asks our opinion, we will report our low-resolution finding accordingly.
The actual mechanics of water divining, investigated from a scientific perspective, is something that actually genuinely interests me. the potential subtle interplay between certain physical and biological processes, and examination of the sensory perceptions we have far below the conscious level and so on seems fertile ground for genuine, if very tedious, investigation
I saw a local guy divining for an underground culvert . He plotted the culvert by crossing the believed path of the drain . He then went back over it with different rods which had a guard over one hand , from which different materials - metals- stones - ceramics etc . were suspended on elastic string . When he held a material against the rod and they uncrossed , he knew that the culvert was constructed of those materials . He rightly predicted that when we found the drain it would be made of baked brick and sandstone . It was .
I watch a lot of youtube videos on many subjects, and your videos are probably my favourites, very interesting and informative, many thanks. I despair of the lack of critical thinking in the world, very sad.
I love the information in your videos. That being said, I'm skeptical that RU-vid recommended them. Rat poison is 99.5% edible food, but that 0.5% is where the deadly stuff hides.
One of the reasons(among others, such as: tribalism, ego, career investment into existing theories/ideas- and whatever else) that causes many professional scientists to be quick to dismiss new theories or ideas that don't have any existing structure to stand on is because if they didn't, the limited resources(such as time, money and scientifically minded people) would be completely diluted trying to find proof for the inumerable theories and ideas that exist out there. Aka what we want, if we are looking to make progress with something, is to concentrate those resources into things that seem likely to give fruit. How do we know which theories/ideas seem likely to give results? Partly by them being associated with something that we think we can trust, and partly because we have some kind of credible proof for it. So those that have completely new, untested/unproven, theories/ideas need to make some personal investment to gather the initial proof...lest we completely dilute said resources. Does this sometimes lead to real, necessary progress getting delayed due to dismissiveness that is based on dogma? Yep. But does it mean that we make less progress overall by concentrating our resources into things we think we know compared to what we would if we diluted our resources into the inumerable theories/ideas that exist and have some kind of non-significant statistical, mathematical or interesting thing backing it? I'd wager not. I agree that some scientists and communities need to be a bit more relaxed with their judgement, but those who have controversial ideas/theories need to recognize that just because they personally believe in something/think they have some reason to investigate said idea/theory doesn't mean it's realistic to expect educated people who are already swamped with work to just put everything they have, or a significant slice of it, and start seriously investigating this new idea/theory with gusto...most obvious things that we think can be useful have been explored thoroughly, meaning that most new things will require _a lot_ of research to understand and to start properly investigating in order to find some actual proof for it actually being useful/realistic. Also consider how heavily specialised scientists need to be today to properly understand what they're working with/on...which is a real hinderance for them being able to properly understand/investigate completely new/novel theories/ideas. _Also, there's no reason to believe that the God of the Abrahamic religions exist, let alone created the world and/or reality that we find ourself in, other than that people in the past claim that to be the case...Evolution however deal with something we can investigate in reality, something you don't _*_need_*_ someone else to tell you about before you can start investigating(aka fossils and animals and whatever else exist to be investigated whether you believe in Evolution or not), just because there is gaps in the proof doesn't mean that anything that anyone else claims to be an explanation for why something exists in the way it does is a reasonable counter-theory. That makes no sense at all if we want to be scientifically minded. Again, claims need some kind of ground to stand on in order to be worth spending our scientific resources on. If we want to criticise ideas/theories that are taken as gospel, ideas that are defended feverishly with little good reason and are very resistant to reformation/change...wouldn't you start with religious gospel, not to mention spiritual faith as a concept?_
Fair enough. Scientists can't investigate every crackpot theory. Nevertheless, they sometimes invest quite a lot of time and energy in shutting down those theories.
I think people need to realise people are responsible for everything people believe, measurable or otherwise. People made it all up. And continue to build on it. Now think about which people generally control what is to be believed. Now consider their reasons... People "know" nothing. People have shared beliefs.
This is exactly what turned me off from Astronomy in University. I couldn't believe the amount of bias build into all the 'facts' and laws. Every measurement that didn't match, what 'must' be true, is simply discarded, ignored, or assumed to be an error. By my estimation, about thirty percent of ALL measurements are omitted from recordings. As a similar example, did you know all GPS coordinates measuring size of earth are recalibrated to what they 'must' be. That is, the earth can't be expanding, therefore increased size measurements are assumed wrong and deleted as OFFICIAL policy.
As always sir, you speak as a real Master. There is another weak point in Darwings theory and it is that the first mammal couldn't find any partner to reproduce. I think that Intelligent desing concept goes in the right direction but we shouldn't head to creationism. There are so many interesting possibilities to explore. We dont need god to explain an intelligent desing in biology. Maybe the designer is not a god. Maybe there are many designers. Maybe there were builders apart of the designers. Or maybe there is a plain biological explanation like epigenetics.
-Many thanks and appreciation for your presentations, Mr. Widdowson. It was the Thatcher thumbnail, drifting into my algorithmic filtering, which first caught my eye. Wishing you well.
@@mysmartphonechannel It’s advantageous to individual organisms surviving and replicating without mutating, not for the development of the species. Staying inside the group means evolution stops, according to the theory.
@@andrewlutes2048 You are right. But that would explain why scientifically inclined (or in the terms of the video gnostic) people exist. They are the mutants. But most mutants die, however once in a while one goes rogue and runs the phoenix power through the magneto engine and then ... uhm everyone dies and God needs to roll back the database. Don't do that.
God, if there were an award for the most truth in the least amount of time, I would give it to you! Unfortunately, there still lies hope in artificial intelligence.
I don't know how this got into my yootube feed(yes i do! My dad and i have been mocking Scientism for a few years now!) But boy am i glad i saw this. I'm going to watch it again and probably a third time just to truly grasp every concept you've covered. I've read Spengler and I love C.S. Lewis and even have a cooy of Hideous Strength somewhere. I'm so excited to see what the rest of your video catalog contains!
Your channel is officially my favourite. I've watched most of your videos twice already. I would be really interested to hear your thoughts on ancient and modern aliens.
Soooo ever since....well the first time I encountered yr musing on science, planet human beings etc. I thought you were using variables like a jazz musician uses chord progressions!!. So i have being hooked ever since.
Makes me recall when I was a child that my father had our old neighbor find water for us using the same method. Which I find interesting given my father was always skeptical of my grandparents worldview and tradition.
Perhaps changes in density or compaction in soil and/or the higher or lower numbers of cracks in the bedrock storing the water, creates a locus of magnetic interferences to or conversely NOT to the preferred location. My reading list just expanded👍
Thank you. For the hard work. For the sustained narrative. For the critique. Time for well reasoned solutions. A challenge, yes? Utterly chilling conclusion calls for your preliminary optimistic reasoned options going forward.
I strongly agree with nearly everything you've said in this video, and I also strongly appreciated your video on monarchy. However, I have to disagree with the religious metaphor you chose to use, comparing "gnosticism" and "literalism" to "real science" and "scientism" respectively. I honestly think you have it backwards. Mainstream Christian doctrine generally holds that true wisdom can only be revealed by God. If you want to think of that as a scientific metaphor, you could argue that is stands for being open to ideas that come from outside of yourself, the willingness to experiment and change your point of view. This is the reason why their have been so many different Christian churches throughout the centuries, so many permutations of the same basic belief system, and I was a little disappointed by the fact that you only focused on the Catholic church. Gnosticism, on the other hand, to my knowledge at least, tends to hold that God is a tyrant and that truth and wisdom are for humanity to possess on their own terms and to use in order to become like gods themselves. It relates to that "We own the science" quote. I also don't think it's fair to hold the canonical gospels up on the same level of credibility as the gnostic gospels, since the canonical gospels were written much closer to the life of Jesus himself. I don't mean to deconstruct everything you've said. Like I said, I believe you were right on the money with everything else. I just think your use of the "gnosis" metaphor was a bit off. I'd love to talk to you more about the philosophical principles of gnosticism if you'd like. I know I'm just a simple RU-vid commenter, and I don't claim to be highly educated. What more could I have to offer than anyone else watching this video? Plus you're obviously too busy to talk to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that offers his two cents in the comment section. Still, I truly believe I have something to offer on the subject. Remember that quote from Ptahhotep: "Take advice from the ignorant and the wise."
1:39:52 - VERY INTRIGUING. From my own personal life, perspective, "coming of age".... it seems as though the "bring out what is inside you" to "I am the way" is synonymous. Not necessarily written wrongly, but understood incorrectly.
The only way to find a water line is when you hit it and break it. The only way to find a leak in that line is after you've dug up everywhere you think it could possibly be and go and dig up the good piece that was replace four months ago
Many thanks for Google for recommending this vid. Ghostbusters is a modern tale of the incoming of Scientism and its sceptical nature of science. The Ghostbusters start their endeavours as big business is unwilling to fund science and they are removed from their teaching/research posts in favour of a corporate funded Scientism. The unfortunate thing echoed throughout the film is that people are will to disbelieve their own eyes and hold on to the Scientism doctrin. Thanks for speaking out!
Hello Sir and thanks for the excellent content! Could you talk about Cataclysmic events in a future video? I see more and more people talking about an upcoming cataclysm and wonder if this is a feature of going into a brown age . Thanks again 👍
Damn dude.. you’re an intelligent man and I very much appreciate your book based approach. Also love your treasures there like that Venus and mini stone hedge.
There could be super sensors, there could be people really sensitive to small electic fields, like those who have it for smell or taste. So you could study divining without these 'sensitive' people in the experiment and conclude to the negative. Getting the control and treatment group correct would be key. Kudos to your sister. Interesting.
Any difference in success between finding still water vs moving water in dousing? The reason I ask is that the experiments Ive seen all involved still water. The experiments are generally set up using a grid of still water in covered buckets
I've watched all your content now. When is the next video coming out? I don't agree with nor understand everything you're saying but you're truly excellent in your presentation and careful research.
I would simply add to this amazing, amazing video that gnosis isnt always a direct reaction to literalism, but is I would say a natural function of many humans in their curiosity and relationship to the nature of reality. As someone with narely any influence from literalist ideas when I was younger I found myself naturally gnostic in the way I looked at the world and sought to learn. Theres even a case to be made that a gnostic approach is the more natural for a humanity uninfluenced by adversarial ideology :))
Many (if not most people) reject knowledge that they assume is fictitious, when it has great usage beyond our understanding. Water is what makes a living space for humankind possible, so why not believe we have a fundamental connection to finding it? The world ultimately drives us, not the other way around.
I think the maxim "you can learn from the ignorant as well as the wise" speaks to the fact that by observing how ignorant people live you can learn how and why not to do that.
Perhaps we should consider the idea of having the capacity to respect each other, no matter the outward appearances and behaviours. Naturally, it is foolish to follow a fool, but there is more to navigate. Appreciate your thoughts , though. It is appropriate such discourse occurs within the sphere of this channel.
